SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Mad) 494

M.SUNDAR
Jothi Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
P. Natarajan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Manokaran.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Kaithamalai Kumaran.

ORDER :

1. Plaintiff in the trial court is the revision petitioner before me. The suit has been filed in the trial court with prayers for declaration of title, consequential injunction and the plaint prayer is predicated primarily on the plea of oral exchange.

2. In the course of the trial of the suit, an application being I.A. No. 53/2017 was taken out by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for the sake of brevity), praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

3. The prayer in the said I.A. is for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property along with the competent Surveyor measure the suit property in dispute fix the boundary line and file a detailed report with plan.

4. In this prayer 7 survey Nos. have been cited and they are as follows:-

1.

R.S. No. 266/1B

2.

R.S. No. 266/2

3.

R.S. No. 266/3

4.

R.S. No. 266/4

5.

R.S. No. 266/5

6.

R.S. No. 266/10A

7.

R.S. No. 266/10B

5. The learned Trial Judge, after full contest in the Interlocutory Application for appointment of an Advoca















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top